Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
and the ability to threaten the united states going forward. >> rose: dow consider the taliban among them. >> let me get that. we consider those groups, obviously a threat to the united states. they're the groups that we are in a conflict with, authorized by the authorization for use of military force by the congress and those are the groups against which we run our efforts primarily around, in afghanistan. in south asia, and in other parts of the world. that's the focus of the united states effort because those are the groups that threaten the united states. what president karzai is saying and we are moving to implement that decisions, in support of this, he is saying that afghans should provide for the core security in afghanistan. that they should be in the lead focused against the insurgency which threatens the afghan government. that's the taliban. >> right. >> and but that's what we're training in supporting and resourcing the afghans to do. and so very importantly, this may, may of 2013, 2013, the mission, the focus of the u.s. forces and the isap forces, the international forces working w
enough after the united states leaves to with stan the taliban and the taliban is able to gain somewhat approaching the power they had previously when they had power, that they would welcome al-qaeda back. >> well, you know, one of the big questions that has not been answered by the president's advisors is what's the american military presence going to be after 2014. in the state of the union, he said we'll be down basically by half a year from now. there are 66,000 now. at the end of the february next year it will be 32,000. but what happens after 2014 when the so-called war is over and there are a whole number of options on the table, anywhere i'd say from 3,000 troops to 10,000 troops or 9,000 troops. and also the capabilities that could be kept in the country from the u.s. side counterterrorism error and all that. so i think what military posture the u.s. agrees to keep in after 2014, and that will effect what nato agrees to do, are the non-u.s. part of nato i think will have a big effect what happens in afghanistan in terms of this question. we should be able to preclude that if th
. in afghanistan we won on the ground and now we will be negotiating with the taliban and instead of in powering the afghani civil society. i could go on for not africa. lou: and judy miller is shaking her head. are you next going to say you endorse negotiating with terrorists? >> i don't, but on the other hand, they are there. lou: they do have that fundamental advantage in the negotiation. >> they are not going home, not waiting for the victory parade. they are there and you must deal with them. lou: or you have to eliminate them. >> or you have to eliminate them. lou: that was our option over two administrations, and we chose not to follow. >> i think it is impossible to eliminate all of them in a democracy like ours. lou: speaking of disasters, your quick reaction, if i may, to the confirmation of chuck hegel. >> it is simple. there isothing new here. this policy will be the policy of the administration and though he represented better than secretary clinton because he will try to engage the iranian without the iranian people. he will try to see how he can settle the issue in syria without b
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)